Join Our Email List

Many people wander unwittingly into socialism, gulled by
assumptions they have not tested. One popular but misleading
assumption is that security and freedom are mutually exclusive
alternatives-that to choose one is to forego the other.

In the United States during the past century, more people
achieved greater material security than their ancestors had ever
known in any previous society. Large numbers of people in this
country accumulated a comfortable nest egg, so that "come hell or
high water"-depressions, old age, sickness or whatever-they could
rely on the saved fruits of their own labor (and/or that of family
members, friends or parishioners) to carry them through any storm
or temporary setback. By reason of unprecedented freedom of choice,
unparalleled opportunities, provident living, and the right to the
fruits of their own labor-private property-they were able to meet
the many exigencies which arise in the course of a lifetime.

We think of these enviable, personal achievements as
security. But this type of security is not an alternative
to freedom; rather, it is an outgrowth of freedom. This traditional
security stems from freedom as the oak from an acorn. It is not a
case of either/or; one without the other is impossible. Freedom
sets the stage for all the security available in this uncertain
world.

Security in its traditional sense, however, is not what the
progressives are talking about when they ask, "Wouldn't you rather
have security than freedom?" They have in mind what Maxwell
Anderson called "the guaranteed life," or the arrangement described
by Karl Marx, "from each according to his ability, to each
according to his need." Under this dispensation, the political
apparatus, having nothing at its disposal except the police force,
uses this force to take the property of the more well-to-do in
order to dispense the loot among the less well-to-do. In theory, at
least, that's all there is to it-a leveling procedure!

Admittedly, this procedure appears to attract millions of our
fellow citizens. It relieves them, they assume, of the necessity of
looking after themselves; Uncle Sam is standing by with bags of
forcibly collected largess.

To the unwary, this looks like a choice between security and
freedom. But, in fact, it is the choice between the
self-responsibility of a free man or the slave-like security of a
ward of the government. Thus, if a person were to say, "I prefer
being a ward of the government to exercising the personal practice
of freedom," he would at least be stating the alternatives in
correct terms.

One need not be a profound sociologist to realize that the
ward-of-the-government type of "security" does preclude freedom for
all three parties involved. Those from whom their property is taken
obviously are denied the freedom to use what they've earned from
their labor. Secondly, people to whom the property is given-who get
something for nothing-are forfeiting the most important reason for
living: the freedom to be responsible for self. The third party in
this setup-the authoritarian who does the taking and the
giving-also loses his freedom.

Nor need one be a skilled economist to understand how the
guaranteed life leads to general insecurity. Whenever government
assumes responsibility for the security, welfare, and prosperity of
citizens, the costs of government rise beyond the point where it is
politically expedient to cover them by direct tax levies. At this
point-usually 20-25 percent of the people's earned income-the
government resorts to deficit financing and inflation.
Inflation-increasing the volume of the money supply to cover
deficits-means a dilution of the money's purchasing power. Unless
arrested by a change in thinking and in policy, this process leads
to all "guarantees" becoming worthless, and a general insecurity
follows.

The true and realistic alternatives are
insecurity or security. Insecurity must
follow the transfer of responsibility from self to others,
particularly when transferred to arbitrary and capricious
government. Genuine security is a matter of self-responsibility,
based on the right to the fruits of one's own labor and the freedom
to trade.

Leonard E. Read

Founder and President

Foundation for Economic Education,
1946-1983

Summary

True security is an outgrowth of freedom, not an alternative to
it.

Being dependent, instead of being independent, is a
move away from true security.

Mr. Read's observation more than half a century ago that
increasing reliance on a welfare state for security would produce
financial problems seems positively prescient today. Consider our
$17.5 trillion national debt as evidence.

The real choice is not between freedom and security but between
security and insecurity.

For further information, see:

(Editor'sNote:This essay, minus some
slight edits for updating, was originally published in 1962 in
FEE's book, "Clichés of Socialism.)